1 Student Expelled, 5 Suspended

[Eloivore]

Originally posted by jersey_emt@Dec 25 2004, 12:11 AM
But what they did was not a crime. Every school has a zero-tolerance policy, and I agree with them. School is not the place to be taking recreational drugs of any kind.

"Zero tolerance" is a dumb idea, because it inevitably leads (and has led) to people being suspended or expelled for taking medicine for legit reasons (if you think that's wack, you should see what the zero-tolerance weapon policies have brought about). Not to mention that telling asthmatic kids they have to go to the school nurse whenever they have an acute attack sounds like a good way to get sued. It's also no more effective at stopping drug abuse than the sensible discretionary policies that apply to most every other disciplinary problem.

[Midknight]

Well at least no one died.

[jersey_emt]

Originally posted by bwhite+Dec 25 2004, 12:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bwhite @ Dec 25 2004, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jersey_emt@Dec 25 2004, 12:11 AM
But what they did was not a crime. Every school has a zero-tolerance policy, and I agree with them. School is not the place to be taking recreational drugs of any kind.

"Zero tolerance" is a dumb idea, because it inevitably leads (and has led) to people being suspended or expelled for taking medicine for legit reasons (if you think that's wack, you should see what the zero-tolerance weapon policies have brought about). Not to mention that telling asthmatic kids they have to go to the school nurse whenever they have an acute attack sounds like a good way to get sued. It's also no more effective at stopping drug abuse than the sensible discretionary policies that apply to most every other disciplinary problem. [/b][/quote]
My high school had a zero tolerance policy for drugs, and if you had a prescription for a medication, you were allowed to take it without having to go to the nurse. Basically, you only got suspended/expelled if you were caught with illicit drugs on you, or if you were intoxicated and did not have a script for something that could be causing it.

Yes, it's not a perfect policy, but still...drugs have no place in a school.

[Eloivore]

Many "zero tolerance" policies are just that -- zero tolerance, the administration does not have the ability to make exceptions for any reason. It's the same idea as mandatory minimums -- tying the hands of those in a position to make sensible decisions. I'm not against drug policies for schools, I'm specifically against the "zero tolerance" idea.

When I was in school it was fairly common for people to carry aspirin or allergy pills with them (especially in flu and allergy seasons, the latter is terrible in this part of the country). The staff was pretty good about catching and disciplining kids who were high in school; they didn't need a zero tolerance policy to do so. Kids who want to sneak in drugs can (and do) still do it; it just makes it inconvenient for everyone else.

The zero tolerance weapons policies are just as dumb. I recently spoke with someone who went to the same HS I went to (mind you, he's *cough* years younger than I am). They suspended him for carrying an x-acto knife (which he'd been using in art class). Mind you when I was there people regularly carried around x-acto knives, swiss army knifes, etc., because people used them all the time in art projects and theater and other work (the rule was you had to keep anything that could do damage to someone -- hunting knives and guns -- locked in your car). Nobody got stabbed then, nobody's been stabbed since. Everyone realized a violent kid can find plenty of weapons in about half the classrooms (chem lab, metal shop, art class, biology lab, etc.), so they disciplined people for being violent. The policy worked fine, I don't see why they changed it, especially given school violence has generally *decreased* over the past 20 or 30 years.

[jersey_emt]

Originally posted by bwhite@Dec 25 2004, 03:43 PM
Many "zero tolerance" policies are just that -- zero tolerance, the administration does not have the ability to make exceptions for any reason. It's the same idea as mandatory minimums -- tying the hands of those in a position to make sensible decisions. I'm not against drug policies for schools, I'm specifically against the "zero tolerance" idea.

When I was in school it was fairly common for people to carry aspirin or allergy pills with them (especially in flu and allergy seasons, the latter is terrible in this part of the country). The staff was pretty good about catching and disciplining kids who were high in school; they didn't need a zero tolerance policy to do so. Kids who want to sneak in drugs can (and do) still do it; it just makes it inconvenient for everyone else.

The zero tolerance weapons policies are just as dumb. I recently spoke with someone who went to the same HS I went to (mind you, he's *cough* years younger than I am). They suspended him for carrying an x-acto knife (which he'd been using in art class). Mind you when I was there people regularly carried around x-acto knives, swiss army knifes, etc., because people used them all the time in art projects and theater and other work (the rule was you had to keep anything that could do damage to someone -- hunting knives and guns -- locked in your car). Nobody got stabbed then, nobody's been stabbed since. Everyone realized a violent kid can find plenty of weapons in about half the classrooms (chem lab, metal shop, art class, biology lab, etc.), so they disciplined people for being violent. The policy worked fine, I don't see why they changed it, especially given school violence has generally *decreased* over the past 20 or 30 years.

I understand and agree 100%.

[vapor]

There is the possibility that this was one of those... "yo man, take like 10 of these and youll be tripping out hard core man!" then the others being overly trusting and ignorant respond. "alright man, I hate being sober at school anyway.. munch munch munch"

I think there is more than just a possibility, I say its almsot a certainty. Think about it, if these kids were responisble and informed drug users, they wouldnt be taking coricidin in the first place. Dxm only products are easily and readily avaible at all places that sell coricidin. These kids jsut heard from someone you can get fucked up from taking coricidin, so they took it. End of story. You have too much faith in todays drug abusing youth. Yes drug abusing, because sadly most of todays youth are not responsible recreational drug users.

I dont agree with a zero tolerance policy at all, I tihnk tis bullshit and as earlier stated just leaves all the incovinience to the people whom take drugs for legitimate reasons. However I stand with my opinion that school is not the place to use recreational drugs.

And im shure these were kids just looking to get fucked up. I dont feel like im rediculous for thinking so, I still stay in contact with people tha tgo to high shcool and they have told me about people that take coricidin. The majority of them take it at school, because it is easy to conceal and take and readily avaible. These are the same kids that go home and take 10 zoloft because it says anti-depressant, and they beleive the oposite of being depressed is being happy or manic, therefore they take them.

There are too many kids out there like this, and these kids were the same type of kids. Im not saying they just decided to take them for the first time out of the blue, they more than likly had done it before, but what I am shure of is they were uninformed and irresponsible. I doubt any one of them could even pronounce dextromethorphan or tell you what class of drugs it belongs to.

[Ubiquitous]

Getting high in school is stupid, and I feel no remorse for the idiots that did it.

Its their education, let them learn from it.